Yes, that is a reason. It's not an acceptable reason at all. They billed OtherOS as a feature when they sold the console. Then they took it away. I don't give a damn what their reasons were, that's fraudulent.

but until phones have enough processing power to replace a full desktop

A 2.5GHz quad-core snapdragon sounds like it would easily compete with the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo in my (work) desktop. And I've always got at least 4-5 applications open plus 10-20 terminal tabs. Of course I doubt whatever they're putting in these things would keep up with my video board. But certainly I could see chips of this class enabling smartphones that can function as real desktops when plugged into KVM.

Guys, you have just totally fallen for Clarkson's straw-man. The problem is not that the 55-mile claim is inaccurate. The problem is that they showed the car dying when it didn't and would not have even if they had run it down. They showed people pushing a perfectly drivable car! Defamation!

...what is the real difference between claiming that you calculated that on your track it would run out after 55 miles, and saying that it's range is only 55 miles?

Wrong question. There's no difference there that matters. But Tesla's complaint is not with them saying that it would have run out after 55 miles. Their complaint is that they showed it "dying" and being pushed off the track, when neither of those things actually happened. And furthermore, neither of those things would have happened if they had run the battery down...the car would have warned them and reduced power, and they would have puttered around the last lap (or another 30 miles if necessary) to the hangar. Please...go watch the clip. They really do act like it totally failed on them. And that never would have happened.

When you look at the history of the American automobile, the "driving force" has always been the mass-matrket car.

Get your history straight. The Model T was not the first automobile. There were a lot of cars for a long time that fit the "too expensive for the mass market" description. And eventually we got a Model T. This will happen again.

Everybody points to the fact that they didn't SAY it, however it was implied...

No, dammit, it wasn't just "implied." They showed it happening. That's every bit as explicit as saying it. If I'm watching a video and some guy gets shot in the head and falls down dead, his death was not "implied" just because the narrator didn't say, "that guy just died."

I won't excuse GP; I'm unaware of any really portable charger that would get your Tesla Roadster home. But when you say, "EVs are bad because they are completely impractical for many situations." you've gone way too far. They are impractical for about 5% of the driving public, and that in no way makes them "bad." Then you compound the situation with "they cost way more than an IC to own." which is just total nonsense. The beauty of EVs is that they cost next to nothing to maintain and fuel. You absolutely can't find an IC car with performance anywhere near the Roadster's with a total cost of ownership that can touch it. Once the Model S comes out this will be even more apparent...it'll likely have a TCO about the same as a Ford Taurus.

First, saying "that's what could have happened" doesn't excuse them from lying about what happened. But more importantly, this statement: "...they were demonstrating what actually would happen to you..." is false. Because that's not what would have happened to you. You'd drive it like hell for about 35 miles on the track, and then the computer would warn you that you were low and reduce power, and you'd go, "hey maybe I shouldn't strand myself like a dumbfuck" and drive home.
Which is another way of saying that even playing by Top Gear's own rules ("we can say anything happened if it theoretically could have") they are liars. It wasn't even a correct representation of what would have happened if they had driven it until it complained.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. They could have (and in fact did) note that the car would only go 55 miles the way they push it on the track. That much is fine. But in this case they didn't just note that...they pushed it off the track after showing it "dying." Which of course never happened.

...suing makes Tesla look guilty as hell, and every news outlet will now cover the tesla-looks-guilty lawsuit...

Er...maybe being sued would make them look guilty. Not sure I see how filing a civil lawsuit as a plaintiff makes one look guilty...

Make an excuse and let them test again with a car that does get 200+ miles per charge.

The car they were driving does get 200+ miles per charge...on the EPA combined cycle. Which is exactly what Tesla claimed. No car Top Gear has ever driven achieved the rated miles-per-tank or miles-per-gallon numbers. This is really basic.

Unless you were standing there with video cameras (like top gear was) to prove the car lasted more than 55 miles or the brakes didn't fail, I'd say Top Gear probably has this one in the bag.

Perhaps if Top Gear was denying the facts you'd be right. As it stands, they admit that the car never died during their testing. That is to say, they admit to staging the scene where Clarkson says "uh-oh" as the car "dies" and then staging the scene where a bunch of guys push the car back to the hangar! I'm sorry, but if you don't call that misrepresentation, I don't know what else to say.